Edgar Wright Leaves Marvel's Ant-Man Film

  • 140 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for magnetic_eye
#101 Edited by magnetic_eye (1739 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukehero said:

@mrmazz: Really? Humor? Many people like myself get tired of some of the shoe horned in humor like in Thor 2.

I want to know what this creative difference was?

I agree. I can't believe people think humor is the (be all end all) of a super hero movie. It should be used sporadically with action and drama taking precedence. Super hero films are more than just a joke per minute.

"The Winter Soldier" in my opinion is a great example of how it's done.

Avatar image for patrat18
#102 Posted by patrat18 (11738 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@lyrafay said:

I read somewhere that he left because Marvel basically went and changed his original script. What's good of hiring these top name directors and never letting them breathe or push their creative limits (something Edgar could actually do at Warner Brothers ironically.)

No Caption Provided

It's true.

Hey if you want to believe that go right ahead.

If the Dark knight trilogy and Mos tells us anything, is that Warner bros will let you do what you want. That Batman and Superman are nothing like their comic book selves.

Avatar image for flazam
#103 Posted by flazam (2611 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for Feartheliving
#104 Posted by FearTheLiving (8837 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@lyrafay said:

I read somewhere that he left because Marvel basically went and changed his original script. What's good of hiring these top name directors and never letting them breathe or push their creative limits (something Edgar could actually do at Warner Brothers ironically.)

No Caption Provided

It's true.

Hey if you want to believe that go right ahead.

If the Dark knight trilogy and Mos tells us anything, is that Warner bros will let you do what you want. That Batman and Superman are nothing like their comic book selves.

I wouldn't say nothing, but making them dark and gritty is far from doing anything they want with a character. I'm sure Snyder was the one that wanted all those product placements or Martin Campbell was like you know what green lantern really needs a hot wheels spin off car. I'm not saying they don't give them freedoms (Marvel/Disney does that as well) but if you honestly think they have complete control over the film like Lyrafay is suggesting you'd be mistaken.

Avatar image for tximinoman
#105 Posted by tximinoman (331 posts) - - Show Bio

@br_havoc said:

Surprised how little this bothers me. Wright had a very specific vision for this movie, it was shaping up to be an oddball fun film like his last few the only problem with that from a business side is its hard to bring in casual movie goers with his vision.

I love most of Wrights movies, but not one has been a box office success and maybe Marvel did not want to risk a 200 million dollar budget on a fun corky strange vision of their character that may or may not capture audiences.

yeah, because giving 170 million dollar to Anthony and Joe Russo (who had only worked in T.V before making Captain America 2) makes sense, but giving the same amount of money to a guy who has proven over and over again that he can do awesome movies doesn't.

Sadly this is just Marvel/Disney being docuhebags. They want people who can direct without asking too many questions, not people like Wright with their own vision and their own ideas.

Avatar image for v_scarlotte_rose
#106 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6730 posts) - - Show Bio

Considering there's not been much information released about the film, I'm not taking Marvel or Edgar Wrights side until I hear more.

I haven't necessarily been enthusiastic based on what I've been hearing, but I don't know who's to blame for that.

Avatar image for rustyroy
#107 Posted by RustyRoy (16610 posts) - - Show Bio

This is sad but Marvel is at a point where this is nothing more than slight bump for them. Anyways I'd like to see him direct a DC movie, maybe Flash or Captain Marvel.

Avatar image for spideysense44
#108 Posted by Spideysense44 (3839 posts) - - Show Bio

He was gonna make the movie to comedic anyway and you know how people already bash ironman 3 for that

Avatar image for the_mast
#109 Posted by The Mast (793 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvel Studios know exactly what they want, and Edgar Wright knows what he wants.

The fact that I've loved every M.C.U. movie so far (Except Iron Man 3) means that I will trust them. Edgar Wright seemed to think that because nobody "knows" Ant-Man, he could do what he wanted. I never liked that. I'm not GLAD he's gone, but I don't care.

Avatar image for magnetic_eye
#110 Edited by magnetic_eye (1739 posts) - - Show Bio

@tximinoman:

You're forgetting that Josh Whedon was predominantly a TV screenwriter before attempting to direct episodic TV. He had a major box office flop with "Serenity" before hitting gold with the "Avengers".

Giving Joe & Anthony Russo $170 million makes perfect sense. They delivered an action packed, suspense filled super hero film. The drama was well acted and humor sporadically used.

It is an extremely well balanced film, its pace also well executed. Their style brought a very different aesthetic compared to the first Cap film, which in my opinion does justice to the books.

Edgar Wright fanboys need to remember Ant-Man is a Marvel property and their vision of the character will always exceed that of the director.

Wright's wacky alternate reimagining was probably a little too left field for Marvel's liking.

Avatar image for br_havoc
#111 Posted by BR_Havoc (1756 posts) - - Show Bio

@br_havoc said:

Surprised how little this bothers me. Wright had a very specific vision for this movie, it was shaping up to be an oddball fun film like his last few the only problem with that from a business side is its hard to bring in casual movie goers with his vision.

I love most of Wrights movies, but not one has been a box office success and maybe Marvel did not want to risk a 200 million dollar budget on a fun corky strange vision of their character that may or may not capture audiences.

yeah, because giving 170 million dollar to Anthony and Joe Russo (who had only worked in T.V before making Captain America 2) makes sense, but giving the same amount of money to a guy who has proven over and over again that he can do awesome movies doesn't.

Sadly this is just Marvel/Disney being docuhebags. They want people who can direct without asking too many questions, not people like Wright with their own vision and their own ideas.

Different set of circumstances and you know that. Captain America was already a proven box office success with his first movie. Edgar Wright has proven he can make cult hit movies that do nothing at the box office, but manage to capture the enthusiasm of a vocal group of die hard fans.

There is no proof of who is wrong here, It simple sounds that they wanted two different visions. Marvel is always looking for two things to expand their movie verse and the make a tidy profit. Edgar Wright wanted his vision that maybe Disney did not have full faith to be successful. From what I hear they are still using his script. Also, if Disney or Marvel did not want directors with their own vision and ideas why would they of hired James Gun to direct Guardians? And encourage him to add his odd twisted humor.

Avatar image for doombot890
#112 Posted by doombot890 (322 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous: yes!!! hopefully from what i've read it was Edgar's plans for this movie that led to Hank not being in Avengers earlier and for him being like 50 and not the creator of Ultron

So I'm actually happy that he stepped down.

Avatar image for nappystr8
#113 Posted by nappystr8 (1548 posts) - - Show Bio

@magnetic_eye: Sure, every studio has its issues from time to time over the course of history, but Marvel Studios has existed for less than 10 years and has less than 10 released films. In that short time the studio has had this issue frequently. It's similar to what is going on with DC Comics in the New 52, every comic company fires creative teams, imposes editorial mandates, etc., but the intensity and frequency of the way it is happening at DC is extreme. The thing about writers, artists, directors, actors, etc, is that they are professionals; they understand the studio process and they work within it successfully all the time. When these kind of splits happen it is a sign that what is going on in the company in question is more oppressive and less professional than what is generally accepted studio politics.

Avatar image for mickey-mouse
#114 Posted by MICKEY-MOUSE (36712 posts) - - Show Bio

@magnetic_eye: Yah, I prefer the Winter Solider. I don't think most super hero movies should be as serious as say The Dark Knight, but being serious can often add weight and depth to characters. Just naturally balance it out.

Avatar image for myerlanski
#115 Posted by myerlanski (2487 posts) - - Show Bio

@magnetic_eye: agreed and I am not against comic relief...but I think it should be used with restraint. This is only my opinion of course...I see how others who like their films with more humorous tones..I'm just not one of them...

I love the tones of the DC films and I like the great balance of Cap2 and some of the other Marvel films...

Honestly I feel the films tone should reflect the characters personality...so flash(Wally) wouldn't fit in a more nocturnal film such as batman...

And a character like punisher doesn't fit well in light hearted toned films...imo

Avatar image for jwalser3
#116 Posted by jwalser3 (6127 posts) - - Show Bio

@amazingwebhead: Wasn't the direction leaning towards a mostly comedic movie?

Avatar image for thorson
#117 Posted by THORSON (4973 posts) - - Show Bio

not sure how marvel/disney can be successful as they have been yet have a bad rep with production.

Avatar image for patrat18
#118 Edited by patrat18 (11738 posts) - - Show Bio

@feartheliving said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@lyrafay said:

I read somewhere that he left because Marvel basically went and changed his original script. What's good of hiring these top name directors and never letting them breathe or push their creative limits (something Edgar could actually do at Warner Brothers ironically.)

No Caption Provided

It's true.

Hey if you want to believe that go right ahead.

If the Dark knight trilogy and Mos tells us anything, is that Warner bros will let you do what you want. That Batman and Superman are nothing like their comic book selves.

I wouldn't say nothing, but making them dark and gritty is far from doing anything they want with a character. I'm sure Snyder was the one that wanted all those product placements or Martin Campbell was like you know what green lantern really needs a hot wheels spin off car. I'm not saying they don't give them freedoms (Marvel/Disney does that as well) but if you honestly think they have complete control over the film like Lyrafay is suggesting you'd be mistaken.

No they don't. They've had problems with that in the past. I'm pretty sure not every director wants to make a superhero comedy. It's clear that Marvel/Disney wants it their way. Dc/wb let Snyder and Goyer make Superman a killer, when we all know that the most iconic character in comics does not flat out kill somebody. In some cases it has happened, but to brutally snap someones neck? Nah.

Avatar image for Feartheliving
#119 Edited by FearTheLiving (8837 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18: Whatever you say bro. If you want to believe WB/DC is this great company that lets you do anything you want with their characters go ahead. I'm really not about to argue about companies giving liberties with their characters. But I will leave you with this. Captain America wasn't firing blanks against those Nazis/Hydra. Iron Man didn't mind blowing up some baddies, Hulk completely f-ed up Bronski, and Thor well I guess those Ice Giants started off in pieces. Also just because there is comedy in the movie doesn't make the film a comedy.

Avatar image for myerlanski
#120 Posted by myerlanski (2487 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18: yeah...its not typical but in MOS I think that was a situation where it was needed...it was the family or zods death...he said it was either him or superman will die....I felt the way Christopher Reeves killed Zod was waaayyy worst in Superman 2....zod had no powers...he breaks his hand and throws him down into a pit in the fortress of solitude...Zod was no longer a threat.....

Avatar image for night_thrasher
#121 Posted by Night Thrasher (3820 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that making the movie fit into the MCU is probably the reason for the seperation. Marvel isn't known for being totalitarian in their treatment of directors or writers, but the thing that makes it unique and kind of hinges on is fitting with the other movies.

Avatar image for magnetic_eye
#122 Edited by magnetic_eye (1739 posts) - - Show Bio

@dreamfall31

Directing someone else's character is a privilege not a right regardless of the pitch or labor invested.

Wright always had more love for the Scott Lang character anyway which I think hinders this project. Retconning Hank Pym as a 70 year old relic from the 60's, denying him as a contemporary and founding member of the Avengers, without Janet Van Dyne at his side and with no credit to the creation of Ultron, imo is a dumb idea.

Dress all that up in a zany 60's super spy heist comedy and it's little wonder Marvel had to re-evalute their options.

Avatar image for bumpyboo
#123 Edited by BumpyBoo (14612 posts) - - Show Bio

@bumpyboo: Gary is probably my favorite Pegg character heeh, probably : D

Yeah, I know what you mean! Related to him more than I wanted to...>_>

Avatar image for amazing_webhead
#124 Edited by amazing_webhead (9818 posts) - - Show Bio

@jwalser3 said:

@amazingwebhead: Wasn't the direction leaning towards a mostly comedic movie?

I was referring to the part about making Pym a retired old man. With all due respect to Scott Lang, I think Pym, as the original Ant-Man, deserves to be the one to join the Avengers. (After all, the whole thing was his idea)

Avatar image for darling_luna
#125 Posted by Darling_Luna (12918 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for lyrafay
#126 Edited by LyraFay (2643 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@lyrafay said:

I read somewhere that he left because Marvel basically went and changed his original script. What's good of hiring these top name directors and never letting them breathe or push their creative limits (something Edgar could actually do at Warner Brothers ironically.)

No Caption Provided

It's true.

Hey if you want to believe that go right ahead.

If the Dark knight trilogy and Mos tells us anything, is that Warner bros will let you do what you want. That Batman and Superman are nothing like their comic book selves.

Also look at WB payroll of directors: Clint Eastwood, Spike Jonez, The Wachowski siblings, Christoper Nolan, Alfonso Cuaron, Ben Affleck and even before that they had Stanley Kubrick. WB knows how nurture talent and lets them make the films they want such as Inception, Gravity, The Matrix or even Eyes wide shut. All of this and WB is considered the most traditional of movie studios.

Avatar image for rezurrection
#127 Posted by Rezurrection (212 posts) - - Show Bio

Aw, this is sad.

Avatar image for crackdown
#128 Posted by Crackdown (633 posts) - - Show Bio

he's been behind this film since before iron man 1, and still no film, id have a new director too

Avatar image for chrisj_1
#129 Posted by chrisj_1 (290 posts) - - Show Bio

I dunno I'm starting to have fears of Marvel crumbling under it's own weight. Most original movie they had was Iron Man 3 and everyone seems to hate it everything else just seems to be tying back to the overall universe leaving no room to breath for all these directors. I don't quite feel it yet but I can see it becoming repetitive eventually and I don't want that happening. Oh well I guess nothing good lasts forever as far as I can tell thing's still ARE good it's a bit of a bummer Wright didn't get his creative freedom but who knows maybe it's for the best.

Avatar image for patrat18
#130 Posted by patrat18 (11738 posts) - - Show Bio

@patrat18: yeah...its not typical but in MOS I think that was a situation where it was needed...it was the family or zods death...he said it was either him or superman will die....I felt the way Christopher Reeves killed Zod was waaayyy worst in Superman 2....zod had no powers...he breaks his hand and throws him down into a pit in the fortress of solitude...Zod was no longer a threat.....

Exactly my point.

Avatar image for patrat18
#131 Posted by patrat18 (11738 posts) - - Show Bio

@lyrafay said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@patrat18 said:

@feartheliving said:

@lyrafay said:

I read somewhere that he left because Marvel basically went and changed his original script. What's good of hiring these top name directors and never letting them breathe or push their creative limits (something Edgar could actually do at Warner Brothers ironically.)

No Caption Provided

It's true.

Hey if you want to believe that go right ahead.

If the Dark knight trilogy and Mos tells us anything, is that Warner bros will let you do what you want. That Batman and Superman are nothing like their comic book selves.

Also look at WB payroll of directors: Clint Eastwood, Spike Jonez, The Wachowski siblings, Christoper Nolan, Alfonso Cuaron, Ben Affleck and even before that they had Stanley Kubrick. WB knows how nurture talent and lets them make the films they want such as Inception, Gravity, The Matrix or even Eyes wide shut. All of this and WB is considered the most traditional of movie studios.

Exactly.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
#133 Edited by deactivated-097092725 (10555 posts) - - Show Bio

Story boards were probably put in front of focus groups and it turned out in favour of changes. Numbers, projections and statistics are what is paid attention to, not individual vision and creative output of a single individual. Production is probably ready-to-go (at least, really expensive production) and before the money was spent, the changes were put forward. I don't blame him for walking away from the film, there should be no creative differences between a director and the studio. You hired him for a reason, Marvel.

It seems more and more a matter of hiring a director just for the name and not the talent for these superhero films. Sometimes it works out, but usually because the director is doing what they want. Marvel doesn't want quirky and cutting edge, they want steady-as-she-goes.

I'm very disappointed. The film I think will still do very well but I had been looking forward to what Wright could do with it.

Avatar image for sora_thekey
#134 Posted by sora_thekey (8812 posts) - - Show Bio

I feel... cheated by this.

The reason Hank Pym wasn't in the Avengers was because of Edgar Wright. The reason Hank Pym is an old man and Scott Lang will be the focus of the film was because of Edgar Wright. The reason Ultron was created by Stark instead of Pym was because of Edgar Wright...

I was okay with all of this because Wright is amazing and Marvel hasn't let me down yet. Now, this announcement makes me think that we could've had Hank Pym in the Avengers. Hank Pym could've been young and the focus of his own film. Pym could've created Ultron.

<drags feet across the floor>

Avatar image for Feartheliving
#135 Posted by FearTheLiving (8837 posts) - - Show Bio

I feel... cheated by this.

The reason Hank Pym wasn't in the Avengers was because of Edgar Wright. The reason Hank Pym is an old man and Scott Lang will be the focus of the film was because of Edgar Wright. The reason Ultron was created by Stark instead of Pym was because of Edgar Wright...

I was okay with all of this because Wright is amazing and Marvel hasn't let me down yet. Now, this announcement makes me think that we could've had Hank Pym in the Avengers. Hank Pym could've been young and the focus of his own film. Pym could've created Ultron.

<drags feet across the floor>

This is how I feel, but I'm still hoping because of this they somehow bring the focus back on a young Hank and Jan.

Avatar image for jibbleman108
#136 Posted by Jibbleman108 (1 posts) - - Show Bio

this is going to impact the movie big time.

Avatar image for mickey-mouse
#138 Posted by MICKEY-MOUSE (36712 posts) - - Show Bio

@sora_thekey: What do you think about the fact that Whedon seems to be supporting wright?

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/ant-man/news/?a=100685

Avatar image for Feartheliving
#139 Edited by FearTheLiving (8837 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukehero said:

@sora_thekey: What do you think about the fact that Whedon seems to be supporting wright?

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/ant-man/news/?a=100685

Who says he is? I thought he was just making a joke.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for whatj
#142 Edited by WhatJ (24 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes it is time to get Hank into the Marvel U and give him his due.

Avatar image for 2ndtolastsonofkrypton
#143 Posted by 2ndtoLastSonofKrypton (6 posts) - - Show Bio

Really disappointed. I love Wright's stuff and he has been working on this for soooo long. Its sad that we won't be able to see his vision finally come to life.

Still excited for Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, assuming they keep him.

Avatar image for supremehyperion
#144 Edited by SupremeHyperion (1811 posts) - - Show Bio

not as disappointing as them giving Hank Pym a raw deal..... (douglas...really wtf)

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.